I think 92 percent of the bakers union voted against the contract, am I right? That would tell you that whatever "concessions" they wanted were not worth it to hardly any of them, even though they knew losing their jobs was a possibility. Hostess has been on it's last legs for many many years because they make products not enough people want anymore.

I think 92 percent of the bakers union voted against the contract, am I right? That would tell you that whatever "concessions" they wanted were not worth it to hardly any of them, even though they knew losing their jobs was a possibility. Hostess has been on it's last legs for many many years because they make products not enough people want anymore.

So going from getting something to getting nothing is the right call? Since they were on strike, they might not even be elegible for unemployment. How about keep working for less money, and meanwhile start looking for something else? That seems rational. What the bakers union did was irrational. They made the teamsters look smart by comparison, and that takes some doing.

Wow, CEO tripled his own pay all while convincing most of the population that him running the company into the ground was the fault of the labor.

I bet he could convince 90% of the Tinderbox to let him bang their wives too.

That was the previous CEO. The current CEO, who was brought in first as CFO and a restructuring effort, is getting paid one dollar for the entire year, as are the other three top executives for the company.

Rayburn announced that the pay of the four top executives would go down to $1 for the year, but that their full salaries would be reinstated no later than Jan. 1. Hostess pays Rayburn $125,000 a month, according to court filings.

That was the previous CEO. The current CEO, who was brought in first as CFO and a restructuring effort, is getting paid one dollar for the entire year, as are the other three top executives for the company.